recumbent exercise bike vs image
AVA
I am not a physicist but there must be some scientific explanation about the hill climbing characteristics of a recumbent bike vs. a conventional bike. From my belief about leverage, a conventional bike would be much superior to a recumbent.
Answer
I suspect much of it has to do with the riders. I've never seen anyone on a 'bent climb very well, but most of the riders seem to be overweight casual cyclists. Many of them go with recumbents because of physical problems that make conventional bikes uncomfortable.
Another factor, 'bents aren't allowed in competition, so most of the truly fit riders stick with conventional geometry.
'bents are also the province of the mechanically inventive odd duck. More interested in the mechanical workings than in speed or riding. Witness the Human Powered Vehicle Association, and the fact that most 'bent riders sport odd facial hair.
Obviously the recumbent has a significant aerodynamic advantage, and is far faster on the straight and level, but gives up a little in weight. The $64 question is if there is enough leverage advantage to make up for the weight difference when climbing.
-------
Edit: I should note that I occasionally use exercise bikes at the YMCA. They have some upright AND recumbents from the same manufacturer. While I haven't rigorously tested and documented, I can say that I haven't noticed any significant power output difference between the two at the same heartrate.
-------
Edit2: Lets not confuse torque and power. If you're operating at a point where leverage is an issue, you're in the wrong gear....... or in your lowest gear on a really steep climb and thus geared incorrectly for the ride.
I suspect much of it has to do with the riders. I've never seen anyone on a 'bent climb very well, but most of the riders seem to be overweight casual cyclists. Many of them go with recumbents because of physical problems that make conventional bikes uncomfortable.
Another factor, 'bents aren't allowed in competition, so most of the truly fit riders stick with conventional geometry.
'bents are also the province of the mechanically inventive odd duck. More interested in the mechanical workings than in speed or riding. Witness the Human Powered Vehicle Association, and the fact that most 'bent riders sport odd facial hair.
Obviously the recumbent has a significant aerodynamic advantage, and is far faster on the straight and level, but gives up a little in weight. The $64 question is if there is enough leverage advantage to make up for the weight difference when climbing.
-------
Edit: I should note that I occasionally use exercise bikes at the YMCA. They have some upright AND recumbents from the same manufacturer. While I haven't rigorously tested and documented, I can say that I haven't noticed any significant power output difference between the two at the same heartrate.
-------
Edit2: Lets not confuse torque and power. If you're operating at a point where leverage is an issue, you're in the wrong gear....... or in your lowest gear on a really steep climb and thus geared incorrectly for the ride.
What are the pros and cons of upright vs recumbent exercise bikes?
estrellast
Does one burn more calories than the other? Any other advantages or disadvantages that you know of?
Thanks!
Answer
I prefer recumbent due to lowerback safety.
ReligiousWeightloss.blogspot.com
I prefer recumbent due to lowerback safety.
ReligiousWeightloss.blogspot.com
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment